Your argument was originally about having to give up something to get a feature. Since we have shifted gears, I'll address the current argument. The value of level 5 and level 10 feature varies from what I would consider near-useless to pretty darn good. I think the ones I designed are on the better end. A bonus to damage is pretty darn good, but it is situational in that you must be unarmed. I need to continue to consider the appropriate power level for a theme.
It may be that a better balancing factor woudl be to require, for the theme, that one have both hands free, but that may be overly restrictive.
'Situational' isn't the appropriate word when the 'situation' is 'my character fights in this style.' It's no more 'situational' than a battlerager getting better with an axe, or Weapon Focus: Light Blades is for a rapier fighter.
Themes are supposed to be a lot more general than that.
Yes it is different, but not "broken." It is different because monks, by design, have a iconic unarmed attack that is never, ever the best choice or even equal to the best choice. So, yes, the unarmed strike is broken because it is always a dumb (except perhaps for role-playing reasons) decision for a monk to be unarmed.
We're not arguing that. What my point is... why tool around with the damage numbers for something when you don't have it figured out in relation to where strikers should be? If weapon monk is too high, the solution is to nerf weapon monk. If unarmed is too low, omly them is an appropriate solution is to give them more damage. If the numbers are about right in the range, then unarmed should just get a minor benefit to attract players with tactics other than Moar DPR.
The thing is, you haven't identified what -exactly- the problem is. Is the problem that weapon monks do too much, unarmed does too little, or unarmed needs a little extra on the side? As I don't believe monks do too much damage with weapons, or too little damage with unarmed, it's safe to assume they just need a little extra nudge to make those who want unarmed builds have something.
Again, you miss the point, it seems. The point is to actually make attacking unarmed a viable choice instead of always the sub-optimal choice.
Yes, but 'suboptimal' is a dangerous word. 'Optimal' applies in a world of minmaxing, but that is not the world all D&D players play in. Fey pact warlocks were 'suboptimal' and yet they were attractive to many players because they enjoyed the tricks they brought to the table.
Giving more damage to an unarmed striker is an option - you may not find it particularly interesting, but it is instead of getting interesting powers and properties from weapons. In my example, to go unarmed one gives up +2 damage (per Flurry target) and +1 AC/Reflex, not counting any feats.
The thing is, it's a bland flavorless option that doesn't make unarmed attractive except as an alternate way to add numbers. What's the -flavor- of an unarmed monk? What do they do that makes them competitive with weapon-users? How do they work in terms of flavor, and how do you transpose that flavor to game-mechanics?
If properly thought out, it shouldn't be as simple as 'add a basic attack and throw in some damage adders.' That's not making unarmed attacks attractive, that's just creating a CharOp argument.
Still, perhaps the idea of imposing conditions is better than more damage. Maybe. It's worth more thought, at least.
Bottom line: Someone building a monk should have:
1. An option for a reasonable basic attack
Stone Fist is Strength based and the damage-heavy option. Isn't that the build you want basic attack options for? The other builds are based on keep-away.
2. An option for an effective unarmed strike that remains a reasonable choice vs. having non-attack weapon powers/properties available, preferably without giving up all other monk build options
Agreed here, but if your options involve giving the unarmed monk the ability to do the same damage without the cost of having to acquire the items to make the damage, it's not balanced. You're better off approaching it from a side angle. I figure the entire thing could be solved by adding 'You get +1 to attack rolls when you are carrying no weapons' to the Improved Unarmed feat. +1 attack will make unarmed a viable option, as that's something you simply cannot do through any weapon or magic property. Then you'd be able to say what the unarmed advantage is: The unarmed style allows one to focus their attacks with greater accuracy
at the cost of the benefits a weapon brings to the table.
Don't shy away from what unarmed attacks can't do. Embrace the disadvantages it carries, and instead, offer something different. That's where strong flavor comes from, and it creates something that engages the imagination more. You're better off approaching it from the angle of making unarmed special, rather than making it equal. Adding 'special' adds depth to the class, adding 'equal' just appeals to CharOp, and only long enough to determine whether unarmed is more damaging than weaponed. If yes, then you've obsoleted weapon, which is bad, and if no, you've failed at your original goal. Neither of these outcomes are desirable.
